RealNetworks Releases Helix Source

teeheehee writes "According to this DigitalMass article, RealNetworks yesterday released source code for their audio and video players, with server-side and encoding software coming maybe in December. The code isn't complete, it's missing things like burning-to-cd routines; and they're getting flak from Microsoft calling it a ploy. Regardless, anytime a big company releases their source only good can come of it (for the public.)" Our story a few days ago had more information on the licensing, and gathered a couple of interesting posts from one user.

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It is a ploy, sort of, but we stand to benefit

[GreatDave]

Real has realized that if they do not embrace OSS, they will be swept under the rug by the combined might of M$ (Windows Media) and AOL (Nullsoft Winamp).

If we see a real open-source Real-compatible player out there soon, it will fill a huge void in the rich media world. Combined with the existence of WMA codecs, we will at last have a simple, spam-free player that just works. No one uses RealOne or WMP or even QuickTime because they want to. These players are slow, intrusive, proprietary, and often loaded with spyware. Bring on the OSS alternative!

Re:It is a ploy, sort of, but we stand to benefit

[0xdeadbeef]

It ensures an enduring mark upon the outside world, but doesn't provide any benefit to anyone.

It disperses food for local scavengers.

and if anyone knows how to spot a ploy...

[Sagarian]

it's microsoft!

Of course it's a ploy...

[NineNine]

It's called marketing. Real Networks doesn't need any help coding. I'm sure that they don't want any. They're just doing it as a marketing ploy to get more uber geeks releasing media in their format, and using their products. They're a company. They want to make a profit. They're not going to do something "for the good of the community" just for the hell of it. It's marketing, that's all. Anyone who thinks that they're being altruistic is very naive.

Re:Of course it's a ploy...

[eric6]

regardless of their intentions, isn't this a beneficial result? We get free, clean media players, they get a bigger market share. Sure it's for their benefit, but ours too. "Not being altruistic" isn't necessarily a reason to be against this. I'd be far more suspicious of a move that had nothing in it for the mover.

Re:Of course it's a ploy...

[SirSlud]

> They're a company. They want to make a profit.

I'm not sure how to say this in non flame bait terms, so I will follow Ed the Sock's advice: "If you dont have anything nice to say, say it often."

So, I'm going to punch the next person who says what you said. Everybody knows companies must make a profit. Nobody doesn't know.

I am so sick of posters quickly pointing out that company A isn't making move B because they've turned into gum-drop fairies who suddendly transcend the need to make money. Of course they don't! Who thinks they do?! Companies are meant to serve a market and can only exist in the absense of selflessness. While you can definately make a case that individual companies may sacrifice time to time in the interest of the overall health of the market, companies *must* and *do* place self interest (survival of the company) above the health of the system (the market).

Now humans, we can be selfless, because we have different goals other that simply surviving as individuals. Our desire to see others succeed where we may not, for example, may cause a human to sacrifice in order to contibute to another human or an overall social order. You can find humans who would _happily_ die if they could sufficiently contibute to an external social order they are ideologically aligned with (think of everything from organ donations to suicide bombers.)

If you were to ask me, the existance of apparent altruism shows how humans (at least some, I contend most) ultimately seek to live lives with a minimal amount of social conflict. We will 'pay it forward' and risk acting in selfless manners even if we cannot be garaunteed that our actions will result in the desired consequence (ie, less social conflict.) Much how people are willing to spend 2 dollars a day for lottery tickets despite no garauntee of winning. The perceived result of acting selflessly is sufficiently wanted enough to motivate us to engage in said behaviour even in the face of evidence that might suggest we may never experience it; just like the lottery.

But the bottom line is, who cares if they're being altruistic or not .. is this good for us or bad? Any discussion on whether Real Networks is being selfless or not is moot and a waste of time.

Please pass this message on to other folks. These kinds of parent posts get people all worked up, but for no reason at all!

The Real Player Secret Handshake

[pete-classic]

I was trying to add RTSP/RTP support to wget, but it turns out that Real uses a "secret handshake" to validate clients before xmiting data.

I am simply not smart enough (or at least not knowledgeable enough about debuggers and asm) to reverse engineer the protocol. I tried to check the Helix source a few weeks ago . . . but obviously it wasn't there.

Does anyone know if the handshake code is included in this source release?

-Peter

Re:The Real Player Secret Handshake

[pete-classic]

Are you fucking serious?

I was trying to add RTSP/RTP support to wget, but it turns out that Real uses a "secret handshake" to validate clients before xmiting data.

Is this at all unclear that I am having problems with a Real extension to the protocol?

To answer your question, I have. One of those pages indicates that Real is within the bounds of the protocol (RTSP) to give a challenge and refuse to stream the data if it doesn't get the "right" response.

I guess I am not clear if you are trolling me, or if /. has degenerated to the point that when someone asks about trying to implement a protocol, links to the relevant RFCs is actually considered insightful.

I'm not sure which would be worse . . .

-Peter

Meanwhile...

[CySurflex]

Microsoft Corp
Company Press Release
REDMOND - 11:03 AM PST - We're happy to announce that in response to Real Network's move, Microsoft Corp is releasing the source code to our acclaimed Windows Media Player. The code isn't complete, it's missing things like burning-to-cd routines, playing audio routines, playing video routines, encoding, decoding, recording, saving, loading files, or generally functioning as a Media Player. However, we are sure the open source community will embrace our efforts and the three lines of code we did release.

Re:Meanwhile...

[poot_rootbeer]

*/
Windows Media Player Code follows:
*/

Figures that even this amount of MS code contains a bug...

Most of the Codecs are Still Binary!

[PhoenixK7]

Most of the codecs are still binary, the ones that there's actually source included for are ones that we've already had for a while. All we've gotten is another media player shell..

https://www.helixcommunity.org/2002/intro/client

c'mon only MP3 and H.263? weak!

I smell a rat

[Dynedain]

Sounds to me like a last ditch effort to keep out of Chapter 11.

Real is known for proprietary products that take over a user's system.

Their most recent free player installs a system tray icon that can't be removed. Includes an auto-update feature that can't be disabled. And periodically uses that auto-update feature to spam the user.

Finding the free version of their player on their website is next to impossible.

The compression techniques are bulky and result in a lot of artifacting (both audio and video).

Its a bad product by a bad company and I refuse to install it on my systems. If there is something I want to see/hear and its only available as a RealMedia stream/file, then I don't download it.

Granted, in the long run, this may be a good thing because it is already a commonly used, established format, which is the kind of thing open-source software thrives on.

But like I said, I'm more inclined to believe that this is a last-ditch effort by RealNetworks to get their install base back up to the kinds of numbers they used to have.

Article at Salon

[No_Weak_Heart]

Here's some more coverage at Salon. Dig M$'s reaction:

"Real is using open source theatrics to try to change the perception among the developer community that they are hard to work with and too restrictive in their licensing terms," said Michael Aldridge, lead product manager of Microsoft's Windows Digital Media

Re:How open is this source?

[lewp]

First off, the CD burning routines aren't that important. There is plenty of Open Source code out there that can burn a decent CD. The media playing bits are the important and interesting part.

Real appears to have two licenses available for use. One caters to the Open Source community and one seems to cater to businesses that aren't as keen on OSS.

Under the RPSL (the license intended for the OSS community) code based on the Helix source needs to itself be released under the RPSL, but it can also be dual licensed with a great deal of Open Source licenses including, among others, the BSD license, the (L)GPL, and Apple's source license. The full list can be found here:

https://www.helixcommunity.org/content/complicen se

It looks like they've got a really good start here for being a good citizen in the OSS community while not alienating potential customers who aren't comfortable with the concept yet. I still need to read the RPSL thoroughly, but it'll be interesting to see what happens with this.

This is very good

[Sivar]

Now we can remove the skads of useless, annoying crap that the player comes with (not trying to troll, but the official RealPlayer is an incredibly annoying application) and cut it down the core--the excellent video and audio technologies that they have developed.
Wrap it up in a package 500K and have a nice, useful tool.

Actually, I see an alternative

[Dark Paladin]

Real doesn't have to use GNU - and while I prefer GNU in most cases, they can do a simple "business vs personal" licensing system. People who want access to the client - go ahead, knock yourself out, code away. If you want access to the stuff that *makes* the RealPlayer files, the code might be out there - but if you're a business, be prepared to pay.

Now, I'm a business developing stuff. Do I go Quicktime/MS Media, where I can't see the code and it costs $$$, or go Real where I can see the code, and it's being improved (hopefully, granted) by all the Open Source fans out there who want to give it more powers.

Or Real can simply give away the code, and charge service for maintenance, adding new features, extra special versions for corporations, etc, etc, etc. There are companies now (Snort, Red Hat, etc) that use Open Source in that way and seem to be doing financially well.

Open Source doesn't have to mean suicide - if you're smart and wise about it.

gratis, not libre

[phr2]

According to the Salon article someone already linked, the Helix license doesn't fulfill the Free Software or Open Source definitions. Royalty-free redistribution is only permitted noncommercially. Also, according to another post, most of the Realplayer codecs--the only parts of Realplayer that are interesting at all--are still closed.

It's not about the Mediaplayer

[sh0rtie]

Its about their website and services that it brings to their "partners"

Their media player was working fine on version 6 and with the advent of their "realone" it is merely now a device to get you to their website and subscribe to their services, nothing more nothing less, a very targeted webbrowser if you will, on Windows it actually uses the IE activeX control as a core browser part of the player (including alert dialogs) which is probably why we havent seen a linux version (thank goodness).

The battle of the players was won long ago, its now about "web services" , Microsoft took a leaf out of Real ones's book and with Windows Media Player 9 they are now no different,

I have 8 buttons on the front panel of WMP9, 3 of those directly lead to windowsmedia.com and what they and their "partners" offer, plugins ? sure i gotta pay for those (unlike winamp) track identification ? via cddb ? nope MS want to do that so they can match me (with their unique player id (selected on by default of course)) with my music tastes and help their partners sell to me (via the msn network), of course RealPlayer has a unique ID option and 70% of the buttons on RealOne lead to Reals website.

I installed RealOne free player and i had a hell of a time losing all the spyware crap and firewalling their encrypted communications to the Real mothership and iam a "power user" imagine the millions of poor users who have no idea whats going on behind the scenes with their imho "private" data, after firewalling Real off the player became severly crippled and most of the functions wouldnt work without me being pestered to "upgrade" (translation: pay money to see their partners adverts) upon every boot Real would try to contact the mothership with encrypted data, spyware in the truest sense of the word

This is why the actual protocol source isnt released its the only thing that forces people to download their player to see streams, sure give away the player shell and server app source for free and when the user hits the stream with their old Real player 6 they are forced to get a modern player which will be RealOne, job done .

give them the glass pipe for free but the rocks of crack you gotta pay for.

It hasnt been about the technicalities of producing a better more efficient media player that can actually help the user for a couple of years now, its about how Real/Microsoft and their "partners" can increase their ROI and make us much profit out of each customer/punter/mug any way they can.

RealVideo 9 is an extremely inefficient codec

[benwaggoner]

I'll skip past most of your whining, and focus on something you're just straight-up technically wrong about.

The RealVideo 9 codec has the best compression effciency (bang for the bit) of any publically available codec in a GM version (I'm discounting Windows Media Video 9, since it is still in beta, but that would be somewhat better in some cases).

Sure, it rarely looks perfect, but it does better than other codecs.

Bear in mind that going from uncompressed video to modem data rates is about a 12000:1 compression! Folks used to watching DivX don't often realize that those files use data rates several times that of typical real-time streaming even over broadband. Also, a file download can have huge data rate spikes that aren't as possible under real-time streaming.